101. Tome truths

Comment #49293 by Arcturus on June 11, 2007 at 12:17 pm

"They are not used to being under pressure somewhat after the fashion of a Honecker, a Ceaucesceu, a Wizard of Oz"

It's spelled Ceausescu.

Very nice comment though. I like Hitchens' book!

102. What I Think About Evolution

Comment #46603 by Arcturus on May 31, 2007 at 7:26 pm

What a bunch of BS!!! This guy wants to be the president of US? Hilarious!!

According to him, the theory of gravity should not be trusted because it undermines the idea that the Earth is not at the center of the universe. SAME LOGIC! (absent I mean)

Oh boy, the world is so sad ...

103. Television evangelist Falwell dies at 73

Comment #41285 by Arcturus on May 15, 2007 at 7:24 pm

well ... heart disease is nature's punishment for fat people.

104. The New Atheists loathe religion far too much to plausibly challenge it

Comment #38271 by Arcturus on May 7, 2007 at 11:18 am

What Madeleine Bunting does not realize is that the most important conversion of these days is not the conversion from religious to atheist, but the "outing from the closets" of unbelievers. I see the recent surge of books and debates as a "call to arms" of unbelievers, as the start of a new movement.

We are fed up with the cr*p that the religious are giving us, and we QUESTION everything that they say.

105. Thanks for the Facts. Now Sell Them.

Comment #32253 by Arcturus on April 16, 2007 at 12:40 pm

Talking about facts and the religious right, are you aware of this:

http://www.slate.com/id/2163601/fr/rss/

Who's the Boss?
How Pat Robertson's law school is changing America.
By Dahlia Lithwick

Monica Goodling has a problem. As senior counsel to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Justice Department liaison to the White House, Goodling no longer seems to know what the truth is. She must also be increasingly unclear about who her superiors are. This didn't used to be a problem for Goodling, now on indefinite leave from the DoJ. Everything was once very certain: Her boss's truth was always the same as God's truth. Her boss was always either God or one of His staffers.

Goodling is only one of 150 graduates of Regent University currently serving in this administration, as Regent's Web site proclaims proudly, a huge number for a 29-year-old school. Regent estimates that "approximately one out of every six Regent alumni is employed in some form of government work." And that's precisely what its founder desired. The school's motto is "Christian Leadership To Change the World," and the world seems to be changing apace. Former Attorney General John Ashcroft teaches at Regent, and graduates have achieved senior positions in the Bush administration. The express goal is not only to tear down the wall between church and state in America (a "lie of the left," according to Robertson) but also to enmesh the two.


------

read more at Slate ...

106. How Many Scientists?

Comment #28473 by Arcturus on March 29, 2007 at 10:16 am

scooternyc, from the article you suggested by Timothy Ball:
"Sadly, my experience is that universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. "

Now that's a ludicrous exageration :). The MOST DOGMATIC? hahaha

107. How Many Scientists?

Comment #28471 by Arcturus on March 29, 2007 at 10:02 am

jlharvey, yes, scientists have to please grant committees but also keep in mind that every researcher is trying his best to come up with new ideas and goes through a peer reviewing process. The most sucessful researcher is the one with the most inovative ideas, and not the one that conforms with the orthodoxy. So I don't think that there is a "conspiracy" that works for pushing the human induced global warming.

The IPCC report says that there is 90% prob. that the present day global warming is due to human produced C02. With today's knowledge this is the best we can say. I trust this answer, there is no better way, other than science, to explain these issues.

Now politics ... well ... that's a completely different problem :)

108. How Many Scientists?

Comment #28356 by Arcturus on March 29, 2007 at 12:07 am

Scooter, I have read a thing or two, even though I'm not a researcher in this field. Like I said, I trust the system that is in place more than the "media" take on this problem. You are right, one should look at all the arguments, but I don't have the time/resources to look into detail. But I feel safe, because I know that that's what a good scientist does, and there are many out there.

109. How Many Scientists?

Comment #28316 by Arcturus on March 28, 2007 at 5:56 pm

Although it wants to be a scientific documentary, "swindled" has a flawed logic and visits ideas that climatologists have considered. Some of the data they use in this movie is wrong and some graphs are purposefully skewed. This is noting more than propaganda based on already discarded ideas.

I have great confidence in the scientists working on the subject and more importantly on the SCIENTIFIC METHOD !!! We don't need propaganda movies to influence the lame public.

110. Creation Science 101

Comment #28283 by Arcturus on March 28, 2007 at 3:48 pm

New article by Chris Hedges:

Creation "Science" Is the Christian Right's Trojan Horse Against Reason

http://www.alternet.org/rights/49811/


"They seek the imprint of science and scholarship to legitimize myth. This is a characteristic they share with all modern totalitarian movements, which co-opt the disciplines of law, science, medicine and scholarship to give a modern veneer to their primitive and superstitious belief systems, systems that allow the rulers to dictate reality and truth. The "paraprofessional" organizations formed by the Christian right, organizations of teachers, journalists, doctors, lawyers and scientists, mimic the activities of real professional groups. They seek to challenge the legitimacy and the power of the traditional organizations. The duplication of the structures and methods employed by the non-totalitarian world, the use of pseudo-science to dress up fantasy, is slowly undermining our legitimate scientific and educational institutions. It is destroying the foundations of our open society. It is ushering us into a world where lies are true."

111. Richard Dawkins at The Sunday Times Oxford Literary Festival

Comment #28082 by Arcturus on March 27, 2007 at 9:33 pm

Ouch, McGrath has tripped. The question if he believes in miracles like the ressurection or the virgin birth was a good one. His answer was hilarious "I do, but the meaning is more important". Prof. Dawkins laughed on that one :)).

I think Prof. Dawkins did a better job than Prof. Atkins of debating McGrath.

112. Neil Peart cites The God Delusion in new album's liner notes

Comment #27966 by Arcturus on March 27, 2007 at 1:04 pm

Can't wait for their new album and following tour!

GREAT STUFF!

113. Peanut Butter, The Atheist's Nightmare!

Comment #27946 by Arcturus on March 27, 2007 at 11:21 am

I can't watch the long episodes, it makes me angry. I feel like I want to punch that lady there. You can't argue with stupid people, we need to tell them what they are whenever we encounter them.

Being religious is one thing, but being a creationist is stupidity at its WORST!

114. Debate between Alister McGrath and Peter Atkins

Comment #27175 by Arcturus on March 23, 2007 at 11:10 am

I really liked the debate. (audio was ok, even I could understand what they were saying and I'm not a native english speaker).

The ideea that I went away with, it the fact that "why" questions are nonsense. We shoudl ask "how" questions and not "why".

Way to go Prof. Atkins!

115. Biology teacher fired for referring to Bible

Comment #26726 by Arcturus on March 21, 2007 at 11:24 am

Answers in genesis ... what a load of incredible nonsense.

The only resonable reaction to that is to say that they are CRAZY, and to FIRE everyone that mentions those lunatics. One cannot respect idiots who keep on pushing forward with their stupidity.

116. The Fourth Flea!

Comment #26642 by Arcturus on March 20, 2007 at 9:04 pm

It seems to me that the usual day-to-day religious people (the theists) need to take not one leap of faith, but two!

If one entertains the ideea that God (whatever "it" might be?!) exists, you need to take a huge leap of faith to believe that Jesus is the "son?!" of God, or that Mohammed was it's last prophet, or that there is a Heaven and Hell "up there". If one day all the brains are erased, and we start from zero culture, there will never be Christianity again, but atheism will always be the same.

Theists seem to me twice as crazy as the deists. Don't you think?

117. Non-believers can be bigoted too

Comment #25608 by Arcturus on March 14, 2007 at 10:03 am

The trouble with theologians is that they tend not to listen to the most important thing: logical consistency.

118. Non-believers can be bigoted too

Comment #25607 by Arcturus on March 14, 2007 at 9:58 am

Well ... it's official:
Nature 446, 114-115 (8 March 2007)

Scriptural violence can foster aggression

Heidi Ledford

There once was a man and his concubine from the Israeli tribe of Ephraim who were travelling in the land of Benjamin, another Israeli tribe. As the couple dined in the city of Gibeah, a mob assembled outside and pounded on the door. The mob captured the concubine, then raped and beat her to death. The man collected her corpse the next day and travelled home. The other tribes of Israel were outraged at the crime, assembled an army and razed several Benjamite cities, killing every man, woman, child and animal they could.

Around 500 students recently read a version of this story, which is based on a passage from the Old Testament, as part of a psychological study. For half of the participants the tale contained an additional passage: when the man returned home, his tribe prayed to God and asked what they should do. God commanded the tribe to "take arms against their brothers and chasten them before the Lord".

After reading the story, the students participated in another exercise intended to measure aggression. About half of the study participants came from Brigham Young University, a religious university in Provo, Utah, and almost all were members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. The other half came from the Free University in Amsterdam. Only 50% of the Dutch group believed in God and 27% in the Bible. But for both groups — whether the students were based in the Netherlands or the United States, and believed in God or not — the trend was the same: those who were told that God had sanctioned the violence against the Israelite were more likely to act aggressively in the subsequent exercise.

The study is indicative of a growing interest among psychologists and sociologists in the origins of religious violence. That subject was taboo until recently for many psychologists, and past research tended to focus on the role of religion in psychological healing. But heightening concern about religious terrorism has pushed negative uses of religion to the forefront. "People often use God as a justification for committing violent acts," says Brad Bushman, a social psychologist at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor and lead author of the study. "And that just bothers me, I guess."

The results of Bushman's study, to be published in the March issue of Psychological Science, do not indicate that religious people are more aggressive than non-religious people (B. J. Bushman et al. Psychol. Sci. 18, 204–207; 2007). Furthermore, the story us ed was an isolated example of scriptural violence taken out of context, and thus does not reflect the experience of reading the Bible as a whole. But it does suggest that selective exposure to violent passages in a scriptural canon can promote aggression.

That response probably reflects a long-standing finding in psychology that people respond more aggressively to a depiction of violence that they feel is justified, says Robert Ridge, a social psychologist at Brigham Young University and a co-author ofthe study.

Sociologist Mark Juergensmeyer of the University of California, Santa Barbara, says his research has also pointed to the motivational power of scriptural violence, but that the context of the message is key. "If violence is presented as the authoritative voice of God, it can increase the possibility of more violence," says Juergensmeyer. "But everything depends on how it is presented." The same passage placed in a non-threatening, historical context might not promote aggression, he argues.

Nevertheless, when scriptural violence is used to promote hostility, it is extremely effective, Juergensmeyer adds. Invoking religious justification allows a political leader to believe in promises of immortality and spiritual rewards that can be powerful motivators. "Religion is not the problem," he says. "But it can make a secular problem worse."

People often choose to ignore the violent side to religion, says John Hall, a sociologist at the University of California, Davis, and they tend to dismiss those who commit religiously inspired violence as members of the fringe. "There are built-in cultural lenses that we use to dissociate religion from violence," he says. "When we see religious movements that are prophetically inspired and engaged in violence, there's a cultural tendency to say 'oh, they're not really religious'."

That view represents a misleading, selective interpretation of most religious canons, agrees theologian Hector Avalos of Iowa State University in Ames. "People who choose the violent interpretation are no less arbitrary than those who choose the peaceful one," he says. Avalos has proposed a radical solution to theologically inspired violence — cut the violent passages out of the scripture.

It's a wildly controversial idea that ought not to be, he says, because spiritual leaders effectively do that on a regular basis. "A lot of churches have a series of passages that they read during the year," says Avalos. "And usually they don't choose the passages involving genocide."

119. Senator calls for answer on creation of universe

Comment #23959 by Arcturus on March 3, 2007 at 6:49 pm

Conservapedia:
Roughly 45% of the United States are Young Earth Creationists and this number has stayed roughly constant for the last 20 years.
-----


As long as christian moderates don't take on these people, Prof Dawkins' stance is the only way. It's their mess, they should clean it or take the brunt of the criticism.

120. Pope is warned of a green Antichrist

Comment #23956 by Arcturus on March 3, 2007 at 6:25 pm

Pacifist is Antichrist????

What happened to the teachings of Jesus? Wasn't him a pacifist? What happened to the divine moral code? I thought ... I'm getting confused ...

The catholic church seems to be spiraling into nothingness.

121. The return of God?

Comment #23951 by Arcturus on March 3, 2007 at 5:55 pm

Chesirecat, I don't have any issues with people believing in the stupidest thing as long as they do it for themselves and don't try to influence the society according to their stupid belief.

Take for example the evangelical "end timers" and their supposed influence in the Middle East/Israel.

Plus they should keep the hell out of the scientific and educational system.

122. The return of God?

Comment #23882 by Arcturus on March 3, 2007 at 10:30 am

Well you don't get that sort of tosh from Professor Craig - though he is careful to draw a distinction between "young world creationists" (of whom he disapproves) and "creationists" of whom he is one. His approach, he insists, is based on reason and logic and not blind faith in a mysterious God. He even spends a great deal of time and effort explaining why the Big Bang is the only credible theory of how everything came into existence.
-------------------------------------

I would like to see this guy debating those creationist lunatics. Once he convinces those people that they are wrong, then he can take on atheists. They should clean up their mess, and then we can talk. They should realize that the "fundamentalist", "literal word of God" fringes are working against the "moderates" like Craig.

There's one thing talking about faith and god from a phylosophical point of view, and another talking about the nonsense that is preached in churches/mosques.

123. Memo: Stop teaching evolution

Comment #22506 by Arcturus on February 19, 2007 at 12:07 pm

I wonder how these Fixed Earth people explain the Foucault pendulum, the cyclone rotation and the Coriolis force. What a bunch of idiots ...

I'm sorry to say this, but US has become a sad country. There is a HUGE distance between the excellent research that is being done there and the population which is being idiocracized by the religious figures.

124. Memo: Stop teaching evolution

Comment #22503 by Arcturus on February 19, 2007 at 11:54 am

gimlibengloin:
"This is seen in The God Delusion where Dawkins is so against the idea of believing in a God one can't see, taste, or touch but is quite willing to believe in extraterrestrial civilisations which are also quite outside the boundaries of empirical science."
---

The existence of extraterestrial life, although as improbable as it is, does not require a supranatural explanation. What Dr. Dawkins argue is that the existence of God is HIGHLY improbable, the most improbable. Even a celestial teapot is more probable than God. It might have slipped out of a NASA spaceship.

Everybody needs to be critical about everything, I don't think Dr. Dawkins would mind critical insight.

125. Memo: Stop teaching evolution

Comment #22488 by Arcturus on February 19, 2007 at 1:22 pm

There are stupid people and stupid people ... but these ones are beyond the limits of comprehension.

It makes me sick to the stomach to read that Fixed Earth website. These people belong in a mental institution. It wouldn't be a problem if they kept it to themselves, but idiocy is contagious and I'm afraid that the american southerner is an easy target.

I was just reading this book "Prophets, Cults and Madness" by Anthony Stevens and John Price. It makes so much more sense now :)

126. Mr. Deity

Comment #18332 by Arcturus on January 19, 2007 at 9:01 pm

This is HILARIOUS!! Could not stop laughing !

127. Dispatches: Undercover Mosque

Comment #18293 by Arcturus on January 19, 2007 at 11:45 am

Just replace Allah with Jesus and there you have it, a christian fundamentalism speech about homosexuality.

They are so alike, same pattern of thinking, same intolerant behavior, same delusions.

128. Discussion of The God Delusion

Comment #18098 by Arcturus on January 18, 2007 at 9:43 am

New article about/with Richard:
http://www.alternet.org/story/46566/

As always it draws lots and lots of coments.

129. Wash. school board restricts Gore's global-warming film

Comment #17707 by Arcturus on January 15, 2007 at 3:26 pm

How can we be balanced towards science? If a theory proves to be correct then it takes over. There is no democracy in science, the best theory wins, the rest go to the recycling bin. Global warming is a theory accepted by the overwhelming majority of scientits, so deal with it!

I remember from "An inconvenient truth", the part where Al Gore shows the number of peer reviewed papers that contradict the global warming theory, they are almost inexistent. But when we look at newspaper articles and tv news then you have almost 50%. Unfortunately people will not read/understand a scientific paper, but will happily embrace what ever propaganda is shown on tv.

This has become too political. We cannot choose what science should tell us. We can argue about what is to be done about the consequences, but not too much on scientific truths if they are well estabilished.

130. Intelligent design is a science, not a faith

Comment #17047 by Arcturus on January 10, 2007 at 12:15 pm

Meanwhile in Turkey, the creationist influence is HUGE:
Nature 445, 147 (11 January 2007)
----
Your recent Special Report "Anti-evolutionists raise their profile in Europe" (Nature 444, 406–407; 2006) draws attention to the strong anti-evolution climate in Turkey, and concludes pessimistically. However, the teaching of evolution is not a lost cause in Turkey.

It is true that the situation is grave. In a recent survey of acceptance of evolution, Turkey scored the worst among 25 countries, with less than 30% of the population accepting it (J. D. Miller et al. Science 313, 765–766; 2006).

The major reason for this has been the conservative influence on education in Turkey during the past 25 years. In 1985, the then minister of education contacted creationists in the United States, a cooperation that led to the inclusion of creationism in the high-school biology curriculum and textbooks.

Furthermore, anti-evolution views are not restricted to textbooks. In a study conducted by one of us in the capital, Ankara, last year, only 47% of the 147 biology and science teachers surveyed said they accepted evolution. More disturbing is that it was accepted by significantly fewer of the young teachers and by only 26% of the 257 14-year-old students.

On the other hand, Turkish scientists have been striving to reverse this trend. It has been publicly criticized by the Turkish Academy of Sciences (www.natcenscied.org). A group of graduate students known as Evrim Caliskanlari, or 'hard-workers for evolution', has started translating the University of California, Berkeley's Understanding Evolution website into Turkish (see http://www.universitekonseyleri.org/evrimcaliskanlari).

Most forcefully, a non-governmental association, Universite Konseyleri Dernegi, has filed a lawsuit against the Ministry of Education, demanding that creationism should be removed from textbooks and evolutionary biology should be covered appropriately in the curriculum.

The ministry has responded by asserting that darwinism is scientifically suspect — using publications by the US intelligent-design Discovery Institute for reference. It goes on to claim that developed countries are including creation-like theories in their curricula and to imply that evolution is not compatible with Turkish 'culture and values'. At this point it is unclear how the case will turn out.

If more Turkish scientists showed their support for the efforts that are being made, and put pressure on their academic bodies to take a pro-evolutionary position, this would certainly influence both the ministry and public opinion. Better late than never.